Morning Joe 10/12/2012 -- Moderate nonsense

The Morning Joe crew talked about the VP debate, and, of course, they gave Biden more credit for doing well than he deserved. Mika believes that Biden mopped the floor with Ryan and chewed him up into a shriveled something or other, and Mika wasn't laughing, although she thought Biden's goofy laughter was appropriate because it showed his disdain for the nothingness of Ryan's and Romney's ideas. Damn straight!

Scarborough and Sam McKinnon felt like it was some sort of partisan draw with both sides thinking their side won, but the real question is how independents reacted. The political pundits like Howard Dean, Chuck Todd, David Gregory and Tom Brokaw all know Biden because Biden is a political professional who's been in DC forever, and Biden is a handshaker and backslapper and big smiler, so they overlook his weird side and his condescending side -- they all pretty much admitted they like Biden, so they see him differently. The country as a whole, no doubt, mostly saw Biden as arrogant and disrepectful, and, yes, goofy.

Scarborough led the stupid analyses on Morning Joe, with the consensus being that Romney/Ryan have not explained how they will pay for their "5 trillion dollar tax cut" and Obama/Biden will not consider entitlement reform, so the moderate solution, according to Scarborough and a few others is to do all of it -- the salmagundi strategy -- raise taxes, cut spending, reform entitlements, a little of all of it.

As I wrote yesterday, I'm tired of this attack on Romney's tax plan. Romney has placed limits on his plan, and this is what Scarborough and the rest of media are intentionally leaving out. I understand the Democrats spinning Romney's plan and lying about it, but why is Scarborough and Mckinnon doing the same? Romney has limited his plan by saying he will not add a penny to the debt. The study by Harvey Rosen that the Democrats are using to claim that Romney's tax plan will be a 5 trillion dollar tax cut and that closing loopholes and ending deductions won't pay for it, so the middle class will have to cough up 2000 extra dollars a year, doesn't claim what Democrats and centrists like Scarborough say it does. Rosen himself said that Democrats are misrepresenting his plan, that the reduction in the tax rate planned by Romney can be paid for by eliminating loopholes and deductions. Romney and Ryan have said more than once that they want the eliminated deductions to fall mainly on the wealthy, so Democrats should welcome such a plan to end corporate welfare. The other criticism is that Romney has not given specifics regarding the loopholes and eductions, but Romney and Ryan have explained that if they give specifics now before the elections, each elimination will be demagogued by Obama and the media. Romney is right when he says the best way to get this passed is to offer a bipartisan effort to identify and agree on the specifics. But back to the limits. If Romney has now cornered himself by saying he will not allow the reduction in the tax rate to add a penny to the debt, then even if it's impossible to pay for the 20% reduction in the tx rate completely, then Romney would have to accept something less than 20%. This is a dishonest attack on Romney and continuing to call it a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, like Scarborough did this morning four or five times is simply a smear tactic, sloppy analysis, and it's unfair.

This moderate, salmagundi strategy is malarkey. Scarborough and company, expecially his No Label pals like McKinnon, sit on the sidelines and make false equivalencies regarding the wrong positions of both parties -- of course, they have the centrist answer, the combination answer to solve the nation's problems. They like to say that both parties are equally wrong because one party wants to cut without taxing, and the other wants to tax without cutting. The truth is that neither side has cut up until now, and,  even now, no one is talking about serious cuts. Rhetorically, the Republicans are correct, but, practically, statists on both sides have grown government so big, and the spending is so great that it's crowding out the private sector, and it's shut down the economy.

Rhetorically, Romney/Ryan are talking about growing the economy and creating new wealth, while Democrats are talking about government spending to prop up the economy. Democrats want to take more money from the private sector through taxing the rich -- this will only crowd out the private sector even more and pour more money down a black hole. Government is now borrowing 4 billion dollars a day to pay for our broken system, yet Democrats and moderates like Scarborough want to throw more money into this system.

First, the system has to be dismantled and the expansion of power has to be rolled back. We have to limit the power of government and allow economic freedom to grow the economy. We have to have real cuts in government, not just taking a little off planned spending increases. Whole government programs and departments have to be cut. We have to allow free market energy production, and government has to remove all economy killing regulations.

What the Republican moderates and Democrats are fighting over is control of a broken system, and no matter who controls it, the spending is automatic, and there aren't enough sources to tax, nor enough entitlement reform plans to fix the problems caused by the system. All plans will be watered down and thwarted with the present statist system. America needs revolutionary change, but I'm afraid no one is ready to call for what actually needs to be done. So, instead, they play the political game and pretend they're serious.

Tell me again, which political party is narrow-minded and dogmatic?

http://wallstreetpit.com/91503-can-blue-dogs-survive

Despite the Democratic Party smears against the GOP as rigid and dogmatic, pushing Romney and all moderates to the Far Right, the Democratic Party is losing its moderates who are called Blue Dog Democrats. These moderate law-makers are mostly from states that don't want to see government employment grow so that the Democratic Party union support expands, especially after witnessing the GSA fiasco -- these moderate states are blue states, but their party isn't listening to them. When voters in these states, who aren't inspired solely by political means, look at the current economic situation, they see an ever-growing government intervening more and more as things get worse and worse. Then when they see Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pushing the Blue Dogs to conform to tax and spend statist failures that have brought us financial ruin and crushing debt, and an estimated future amount of unfunded liabilities equaling 60 to 80 trillion dollars, the voters say why are we sticking with the Democratic Party, especially when our representatives are treated like literal dogs in the party?

2012 politics and libertarians

In 2009 when there was talk of libertarian influence among Tea Partiers, I wrote that it wouldn't be long before conservatives, moderates and liberals started marginalizing libertarian ideas. Well, they didn't marginalize libertarian ideas, per se, becasue they never addressed the ideas. Mostly, moderates and liberals marginalized the Tea Party by framing it is as hardcore and anti-government in the vein of Timothy McVeigh, the cartoon version of rightwingers as kooks in Montana cabins with machine guns and hand grenades guarding against mind-control and black helicopters. Then they associated libertarian influence with the cartoon fanatic. I haven't seen a moderate or liberal critic of libertarianism address libertarian ideas, and I've found no evidence they've read the rich libertarian literature from Bastiat to Mises to Nock to Rothbard to Woods. Most moderate and liberal critics reveal their lack of knowledge of libertarian ideas by criticizing libertarians on positions most libertarians don't take, such as promoting no government at all, supporting Big Corporations and advocating the abolition of regulation.

The majority of libertarians I know and have read believe at least a minimal State is necessary to protect individual rights, and most libertarians support a free market which would hurt most Big Corporations by allowing free competition from small and medium size companies which would become a threat to large sluggish corporations, and most libertarians understand that in a free market the public would likely create regulation/consumer protection sources, and companies would welcome the oversight in order to instill confidence in the public regarding their products or services.

Social conservative groups have attempted to marginalize libertarians, because social conservatives believe libertarians are drug users, pornographers and profligate libertines who want no restrictions on their risque lifestyles. This was mainly how Rick Santorum criticized libertarians -- he also had obviously never read the literature. Just because a libertarian believes that if an adult wants to smoke pot, he or she should be free to make that decision, or if an adult chooses to create or look at pornography and it only involves adults who consent, then a free society should allow this, doesn't mean that the libertarian approves of either the use of pot or the creation of pornography. The libertarian believes that morality is a part of the national debate, not a subject of legislation and coercion. Keeping government out of our bedrooms and private lifestyle choices is a matter of liberty. If a religion believes that these actions are immoral, then they have the freedom to condemn the actions and attempt to influence people to stop, but they shouldn't be able to coerce adults against their free wills as long as the free adults' actions aren't violating the rights of others.

This is basic libertarian stuff, but it has been ignored in media in favor of cartoon version attacks by political forces afraid of libertarian influence. The reason there is fear of libertarian influence is not because of pot use or pornography or Big Corporations taking over or unregulated goods killing people -- no, it's because  libertarians propose to limit the power of government and increase the power of ordinary people in the private sector through a free market. This terrifies statists on the Right and Left whose world views hinge on State power and legislation to enforce their world views and implement their plans for collective action.

There's a faction of conservatives, New Republicans, and a few real liberals, like Glenn Greenwald, in the public spotlight who welcome libertarian influence and maintain libertarian ideas themselves. We'll see if the libertarian influence is real or whether statists successfully marginalize libertarians. If the last defenders of liberty are snuffed out, it won't be long before Americans realize why liberty was so important in the first place.

How wrong can media, moderates and the Left be?

I call them statists because they all have an undying confidence in government's ability to run the country from culture to economy to foreign relations. They have helped build and sustain a powerful State and they think in terms of State power in relation to all economic problems and social problems. "Statism" is a very appropriate term to describe those in both political parties who have confidence in the efficacy of the State -- with Republican statists thinking their group of government officials can run the ocuntry better than the Democrat statists, and vice versa.

Mitt Romney was a strange mixture as governor of Mass. -- he's a capitalist who understands the market, but he lacked the ideology to understand the system of capitalism and how it must have freedom to avoid the perversion of State capitalism, a soft form of fascism. Romney was a practical CEO and he dealt with government as found it with the statists in place, and he was given an assignment to "fix" healthcare, thus, he came up with Romneycare. This is how many, fine people who choose to run for office fall into the statist trap. If they aren't people of ideas, like Reagan became later in his life, they assume a pragmatic stance of getting the job done, and all the career statists are eager to help them get things done.

Now that the Information Age has put forth the ideas that will define us as a nation going forward, Romney has heard what he did wrong before, and, so far, he appears to have responded to the call for limits and liberty. I think Ron Paul has had a positive influence on Romney, forcing Romney to think more deeply about political philosophy. Romney will never be a philosopher, but he can become someone who understands the power of the private sector and the need for government to stop intervening in the economy and meddling abroad.

Media, moderates and the Left have all tried to sabotage Romney's candidacy, and it's mainly because Romney doesn't fit into the political world. They see Romney as a good businessman, but they see him as a risk when it comes to depending on a President to play the political game. Romney can reject the political players as ignorant of economics and this scares the statists. Santorum would be a good political, statist player -- he understands the political game. Romney doesn't want to play the political game, and he's learned from his pragmatic bout with healthcare and career statists in Massachusetts. Romney did the best job he could with what he had to work with, but Romney now sees that universal healthcare for America run by government will destroy the nation. The Left misled the country about the cost of Obamacare, as did the media and moderates -- many of them choosing to remain silent as the bill was passed.

The media, moderates and the Left have been wrong about a lot of important things, mainly to do with economics, and now they are still pretending Romney might stumble, but Romney is ahead in Wisconsin, and it's over -- Romney is the nominee. Romney can't articulate what I've just written, but anyone who is not stuck on partisan stupidity will see that Romney can help empower the private sector and allow economic growth -- we have to prevent another four years of statism -- we have to.

Republican Establishment

What is the Republican Establishment? Some say that the conservatives are the Establishment, but that brings up a quandary -- what makes a conservative a conservative -- what is being conserved? Brit Hume, discussing the topic with Brett Baier on Fox, said that moderates are considered the establishment, but moderates are the outsiders. Is this true? So, the New Republican conservatives associated with the Tea Party are the establishment? Perhaps Hume means that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are conservatives, and Bush was a conservative? I don't think so. 

The Republican Establishment can only be the power players in the party who are concerned basically with political power. Some might be more conservative than moderate and vice versa, but the Establishment is made up of the power-elite who have influence on the Republican Party. Hume said McCain was an outsider because he often went against the party, so the idea that the Establishment chose McCain doesn't make sense. It does when power is the central concern. McCain, like all Establishment players, is concerned with power, so he would go along with any scheme if it meant prestige and power. Moderates are usually just Big Government Republicans who play the middle to maintain power, prestige and position. Surely, the art of moderation is valuable at times, but to establish moderation as a permanent position is meaningless except in terms of power maintenance and expansion of State control.

But, really, to propose that true, limited government conservatives are the Republican establishment is a little silly. It helps to define the type of conservative in question and what's being conserved. There's different types of conservativism in the world, and in the US there are two major types -- political conservatives and social/religious conservatives. Conserving the traditional principles of limited government, economic freedom, rule of law, and a strong national defense were once subordinated in conservatism to social traditions, but the groups have split for the most part, and, now, the social/religious conservatives have a narrow concern of conserving Christian dogma and traditions. The social conservatives are interventionists, believing that government should intervene in our private lives to establish obedience to moral codes -- social conservative may or may not promote economic freedom, but the economy is a secondary concern at best. Social conservatives have become hawkish in foreign policy, resisting the advancement of atheistic communism in the 20th century and, in the 21st century, resisting the advancement of Islamist radicals, even when the advancements are abraod and not a direct threat to our national security.

Social conservatives have become a weaker influence in the political realm, because society has changed and religious traditions have faded. Plus, Americans, as time went on, valued more and more the separation of Church and State. It's the political conservatives who are of importance in the political realm in terms of governance and State power. The Republican power-elite, the Establishment, speak of conservative values, but they have compromised free market/limited government principles for decades in the pursuit of political power for power's sake. There's a disconnect between political conservative principles, which most of the American Founders promoted and America was mostly governed by in the 19th century, and the political pragmatism of Republican representatives in government. The Republican Party is influenced mainly by Big Government Republicans who practice compromise and pragmatism in governance. Political conservatives have had an effect on Big Government Republicans, but the two terms of George Bush present a clear example of the disconnect between rhetoric and practice.

Political conservatives who won important victories in 2010 are slowly becoming marginalized as Big Government Republicans cautiously lead them to the accepted practices in government. Many political conservatives have entered office with a heart and head full of idealistic plans for systemic changes, but the system beats them into cynical acceptance and weak rationalizations. Our statist system has ground down the best political conservatives, although many have tried to maintain integrity the best they can.

No, the Establishment is not made up of political conservatives, although I'd like to think that this time political conservatives can hold their ground, resist Big Government Republicans and come to a meeeting of the minds with religious/social conservatives. The Republican Party is in dire need of reformation with a realization that statism is leading us to collapse, endless wars are expanding State power, wasting precious lives and treasure, and that religious dogma and tradition are matters for the private sector not matters for governance and legislation. Too much concern is placed on security, but conserving liberty means that risks will be present -- we can handle these risks without creating an authoritarian nightmare -- we can all find our spiritual paths without legislation. The libertarian alliance on the Right has to be with political conservatives, because, otherwise, the alliance makes no sense.

I hope Hume is right and that political conservatives, in alliance with libertarian-leaning independents, become the Establishment, because then we can eliminate it so that economic liberty and peace can flourish.

Update on Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at 10:20PM by M. Farmer

I will address neocons in another post -- I don't consider them conservatives.